Note:  What is shown below is a copy of the original letter, made for this website.  It is included here only so that the contents of the original letter can be searchable.  (The PDF received from the City is in the form of an image, and so is not a searchable document.)

What is below is not the letter sent by the letter-writer. It will contain typographical errors and other departures from the original.  The PDF displayed above is accurate.  The text below is not accurate.  It is printed here for indexing purposes, so that each word can be indexed and included in the search.

PUBLIC COMMENT RE LAND USE PLAN FOR MARCH 27, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
First, I want to note that I agree with most of the comments included in the additional comments
published this morning, presumably drafted by Judith Mayer, the only experienced Land Use Planning
expert on the Planning Commission and who takes the time to thoroughly examine the draft
provisions and make suggestions for improvement. Are you listening to her?
In particular, I want to note problems with the current plan on P. 25, which states as follows:
LU-1d Streamlined Review and Standards in Infill Opportunity Zones. As described in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing
Element, Priority Infill Opportunity Zones are intended to identify areas where the City plans to accommodate high density
residential uses through a ministerial review process in order to facilitate housing production. In addition to creating a
ministerial pathway for residential projects, applicable standards (parking ratios, height limitations, site coverage, etc.)
shall be modified to allow consistent with development at greater densities with a larger reliance on multi-modal transit.
First, the final sentence makes no sense unless the word “consistent” is meant to be “consistency.”
Secondly, there has still been no clarification of what is meant by “a ministerial review process” and “a
ministerial pathway for residential projects.” Before anyone signs onto this particular provision, this
needs to be clarified. Which of the 3 streamlining models are we talking about here: Option #1:
review simply by the Community Development Director, Option 3 review by the Planning
Commission, or Option 3? Or are we talking about “by right approval?”
Please make clear what is being discussed before approving this particular provision.
Finally, I think it Is very short-sighted and negligent to propose high density housing in areas that are
going to be inundated by sea level rise within 30-50 years, regardless of their location within
Arcata. We don’t need to build in future flood zones.
Move such plans to higher elevations and don’t invest in short-term solutions.
Thank you. Jane Woodward

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR MARCH 27, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Good evening. I have several comments regarding tonight’s Planning Commission
meeting:
1) As I requested at the Feb 28 meeting, in order to address the L street
choices, I think it is necessary to lay out a visual representation of what L
Street would look like either as a one-way street, or as a linear park with
surrounding building options. I think that would make it easier for both the
PC and the public to visualize each option and make an informed decision.
None of the current 3 options presented about L Street accurately presents
the Transportation Safety Committee’s actual recommendations. Why
hasn’t the City done this alternative plan or had a thorough discussion of L
Street as a linear park? Why are the Transportation Safety Committee’s
recommendations ignored? Will you give the committee’s chair Dave Ryan
an opportunity to present their recommendations in person to the
Commission? Why is the 2010 L Street Vision report not being discussed?
2) I don’t believe that the City owns all the property required to create L
Street as a one-way street, and has stated that it doesn’t plan to use
eminent domain in the area. How does the City plan to address this issue?
3) The Great Redwood Trail Authority now has jurisdiction over the railroad’s
right of way. Have they been consulted in terms of making L Street a oneway street? Isn’t that an important thing to do?
4) It is a goal of the City to make the Gateway Area bike and pedestrian
friendly. Why not take advantage of an existing linear path and develop it
into a public park to be used by bicyclists and pedestrians as an alternative
to using K Street? It goes throughout the Gateway area. Why are we
proposing there will be lots of additional traffic on K Street if we’re
encouraging and planning for less vehicle traffic? If bicycle and pedestrian
traffic is directed toward L Street, major space for it can be removed from K
Street.
Thank you. Jane Woodward